If YOU could change boxing for the better, what would you do?

[Ike Turner]

if i could change it, there would be a really good heavy weight division with boxers people would actually pay to watch.

i would also find a way to restructure who can sanction fights. in the wba alone, there are seventeen weight divisions. there are too many championship belts right now, more than most people can count. gets uninteresting.

 

[HERESY]

As I've said before, there are too many weight divisions and too many bodies. We don't need the WBA, IBF, WBC, WBO, NWO, NAACP, ABC, CBS, XYZ, NBC, IOU, UOME, CIA, FBI, WBF, etc etc etc. At MAX I believe we should have 11 weight classes and there was a time where I believed we should go back to 8.

I'd increase the amount of judges and there would be drug and alcohol testing for them before AND after the fight.

I'd also offer the fights WITH and WITHOUT commentary.

Unification bouts would be 15 rounds.

OSDT until the day of the fight and right after the fight but WEED would be allowed.

 

[CZAR]

if i could change it, there would be a really good heavy weight division with boxers people would actually pay to watch.

i would also find a way to restructure who can sanction fights. in the wba alone, there are seventeen weight divisions. there are too many championship belts right now, more than most people can count. gets uninteresting.

Thats not a change? U cant just clone heavyweights and make them good. We either have good fighters or we dont. Just how it is. Got Em!!

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Besides the Ali era and early Mike Tyson/Holyfield days, the heavyweight division has mostly always been overrated. Welterweight to Middleweight are where most of the greatest fighters of all time come from, without question and it's not even close. You get best of both worlds too - speed, power & athleticism. There are only a handful of examples of truly gifted heavyweight athletes. Ali being the best of course.

 

[Ike Turner]

the main question of this thread is "if i could", so if i could i would, if somehow i can, but in reality i can't clone boxers, but if some how i could, then that means i can, but i never did say can. i'd clone me all sorts of mike tyson's. big tyson, midget tyson, cross breed holyfield/tyson. etc

Thats not a change? U cant just clone heavyweights and make them good. We either have good fighters or we dont. Just how it is. Got Em!!

 

[CZAR]

the main question of this thread is "if i could", so if i could i would, if somehow i can, but in reality i can't clone boxers, but if some how i could, then that means i can, but i never did say can. i'd clone me all sorts of mike tyson's. big tyson, midget tyson, cross breed holyfield/tyson. etc

:classic: Got Em!!

 

[CHRISHOGGALYPSE]

I think weigh-ins need to be same day too. I realize this takes away the advantage for a lot of fighters and we might lose someone like a Brandon Rios as far as being a decent fighter but I've always thought it was b.s. for someone like Chavez jr. to put on like 20+lbs overnight, especially when he tests positive for a diuretic after the fight.

 

[antilabs]

what do you mean by that? You said something about the UFC throwing guys to the wolves. In boxing I wouldn't like that at all. I think in boxing it can take longer to develop as a pro fighter since the amateurs are SO MUCH different. It's almost like two different sports. In the amateurs it's like playing tag, it really isn't boxing. With UFC, guys can have MMA fights before they step onto the big stage. Also if they lose, it's more of a learning experience than anything.

There are often guys from Mexico, the Philippines, etc. who turn pro at age 16 and it just isn't realistic for them to be "fed to the wolves" so early. Guys careers would literally be destroyed before they ever got going and you'd see guys who are shot in their early 20's. So it's beneficial for boxing to let these guys gain experience and develop as pro fighters.

The reason in boxing some of the top fights aren't made is complex. First, there are the sanctioning bodies. It SHOULD be their job to enforce mandatory fights that make sense. But as we know that doesn't always happen. Maybe there is another fight that makes more money. Maybe for whatever reason one of the two fighters isn't ranked in their rankings. etc etc etc. At the end of the day, there are at least four major sanctioning bodies (WBC, WBA, WBO, & IBF), that's the real problem. They all have their own rankings, own belts, own rules and none really want to work together. That's what it boils down to. I wish some billionaire would be like fuck it and buy all four of them and merge them into one body, but that likely wont happen. So this is what we have to deal with.

champs should be fed to the wolves. of course matchmakers in mma are cognizant of individual fighter development, but champs and top contenders shouldn't be protected — doing so is diametrically opposed to the spirit of competition.

since you basically echoed my original sentiment that the sanctioning and title model of boxing is broken, and the model mma/ufc have adopted is, while not perfect, the best in combat sports for fans — i don't really have any qualms with what you said there.

 

[HERESY]

I'd also like to add that I'd have it so no two fighters fought each other more than 3 times. None of that Pac vs JMM fight #78 bullshit.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I disagree hersey. Every once in a while an epic matchup arises that requires more than three fight. Sugar Ray Robinson vs Jake LaMotta was so good they had to do it six times. And every fight was super close besides the 6th and final match.

 

[CHRISHOGGALYPSE]

Pac/Marquez 4 was widely regarded as fight of the year. What's the harm in that? And had the best/most conclusive ending while they still put on a great fight.

Vasquez/Marquez 4, not so much. they'd taken so much out of each other, they were done. That's boxing, it happens. How many rematches don't live up to the hype?